Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!

If you're going to criticize it you should say what's wrong with it and help us fix it. Where in the equations is the inaccuracy?

It has already been pointed out. Corey Dickerson is not playing better than Bryce Harper despite what WAR says. Andrelton Simmons was third in all of baseball last year despite putting up pretty average numbers. Defense is not weighed equally for everyone. It boosts some player's WAR while shrinking others. I already made my point re: Mattingly and his negative WAR for defense, which is absurd.

It has already been pointed out. Corey Dickerson is not playing better than Bryce Harper despite what WAR says. Andrelton Simmons was third in all of baseball last year despite putting up pretty average numbers. Defense is not weighed equally for everyone. It boosts some player's WAR while shrinking others. I already made my point re: Mattingly and his negative WAR for defense, which is absurd.

Yeah, I've been pointing out the Mattingly thing for years. All other defensive optics he's superior at his position, but WAR chooses to really penalize 1st Basemen no matter how good they are for some reason.

I think it's a hugely under-rated position. Just because teams can stick largely immobile guys there, thinking they are hiding them, and I think it's a super misguided strategy.

I've watched enough Yankees 1st Basemen over the years, to see how a competent to superior 1st Basemen can elevate the confidence of an entire infield. Just watch Greg Bird in last years playoffs, compared to the round robin of 1st Basemen they had playing during most of the regular season.

Meanwhile Jason Heyward has racked up tons of WAR points in Right Field in his career, while averaging about 2.5 chances per game. A lot of them, simply by stealing chances from his centerfielder on routine plays............who in turn, usually have THEIR defensive WAR impacted negatively, whenever Heyward inhabits that corner of the field.

The answer is never go by just one metric, and it's the fool who uses just one. Just as in science (or authentication) where you never go by one type of test. A metric or scientific test often gives useful, and even essential, information, but you should never come to a final conclusion by just the one.

And when doing or looking at precise mathematical or statistical calculations, keep in mind what Economics Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontief said: "Page after page of academic journals are filled with mathematical formulas leading the reader from sets of more or less plausible but entirely arbitrary assumptions to precisely stated but irrelevant theoretical conclusions."

Someone just yesterday asked what was my definition of genius, and I said "Someone who sees the forest not just the trees, where others see just the trees." Some would call that enlightenment.

"A lot of them, simply by stealing chances from his centerfielder on routine plays"

This is a known issue. There's some philosophical differences over whether it's a problem or not - it really depends on what's you're trying to measure. If you have Greg Luzinski in the outfield, having him play next to someone who can "steal" chances from him is a really valuable thing to have. If you have other really good outfielders it doesn't matter so much.

As for Mattingly: he was a really good defensive first baseman. I'm not objecting to his gold gloves. dWAR (the defensive component of WAR) itself has two components: a measure of how many runs a player saved based on the plays that he made, and a positional adjustment. Mattingly saved a lot of runs, but, like all first basemen, he's hit with a big negative positional adjustment. But you really do need a positional adjustment, otherwise a short stop who could hit like Mattingly, and a first baseman who could hit like Mattingly, would end up with equal WAR. Whereas obviously the SS is more valuable, since it's so much harder to find someone who can both hit like Mattingly and play short stop. We can argue over how large the positional adjustment should be (how large it should be for DH's is a matter of rather extreme controversy), but it's clear that there's got to be some, and it's clear that it's got to be large and negative for first basemen. But again, that's not a knock on Mattingly's defense, he was a very good defensive player for a first baseman. It's just a reminder that it's easier to find good hitters who can play first than it is to find good hitters who can play short.

Mattingly wasn't just good though, he was the Andrelton Simmons of first basemen; an elite of the elite. If WAR was calculated properly for him he'd have the HOF metrics people knock him for. Not saying he deserves them either, but that's the point re: WAR not being reliable.

"A lot of them, simply by stealing chances from his centerfielder on routine plays"

This is a known issue. There's some philosophical differences over whether it's a problem or not - it really depends on what's you're trying to measure. If you have Greg Luzinski in the outfield, having him play next to someone who can "steal" chances from him is a really valuable thing to have. If you have other really good outfielders it doesn't matter so much.

As for Mattingly: he was a really good defensive first baseman. I'm not objecting to his gold gloves. dWAR (the defensive component of WAR) itself has two components: a measure of how many runs a player saved based on the plays that he made, and a positional adjustment. Mattingly saved a lot of runs, but, like all first basemen, he's hit with a big negative positional adjustment. But you really do need a positional adjustment, otherwise a short stop who could hit like Mattingly, and a first baseman who could hit like Mattingly, would end up with equal WAR. Whereas obviously the SS is more valuable, since it's so much harder to find someone who can both hit like Mattingly and play short stop. We can argue over how large the positional adjustment should be (how large it should be for DH's is a matter of rather extreme controversy), but it's clear that there's got to be some, and it's clear that it's got to be large and negative for first basemen. But again, that's not a knock on Mattingly's defense, he was a very good defensive player for a first baseman. It's just a reminder that it's easier to find good hitters who can play first than it is to find good hitters who can play short.

I strongly disagree with this. A player's defensive value comes from the runs he saves. He shouldn't need a positional adjustment. A shortstop's
adjustment comes from getting more chances. A statue at shortstop is not more valuable than a first base man saving his infielders throwing errors.

Just examples from a Cubs game I was at last week. Their first base men saved Kris Bryant 2 errors by digging out bad throws cleanly. Jason Hayward missed a catchable ball and then let it get away from him for a triple instead of catching it for an out. However dWAR says the wrong guy has positive value.

I like WAR to compare players at the same position, but otherwise it isn't very useful. Positinal adjustment is a joke in my opinion.

Mattingly wasn't just good though, he was the Andrelton Simmons of first basemen; an elite of the elite. If WAR was calculated properly for him he'd have the HOF metrics people knock him for. Not saying he deserves them either, but that's the point re: WAR not being reliable.

hahaha being so wrong so often must get frustrating, huh old man

the game has left you behind, deal with it, or die off and leave it to those who understand it

__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits

the game has left you behind, deal with it, or die off and leave it to those who understand it

This isn't productive. Explain how the stats are calculated and explain why they're calculated that way. It does, in the end, make sense. So if you want to help people understand baseball better, just show them that it makes sense.